User talk:Auldhouse/Archive 1

thanks for the thanks:)

ps. i like kittens.

Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Leon Shimkin has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Leon Shimkin. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Crowell Collier Publishing Company has been accepted

Crowell Collier Publishing Company, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome

Once in a while a contributor to AFC writes something that is worth writing and needs accepting. It doesn't happen very often. There are already slightly more than five million articles in the English Wikipedia (of which between three and four million are reasonable). Many AFC drafts are various kinds of crud, such as promotional drafts about the author, the author's company, the author's band, etc. At least I know what they are. Then there are test edits, rants, polemics, and other stuff. It is unusual to encounter two appropriate articles from the same author in the same evening. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if you write another draft and you would like it to get into article space quickly, you may do one of two things. First, since you know what you are doing, you can, if you wish, move it directly into article space. Second, put it, as you did, into Sandbox space rather than into draft space. Sandbox drafts tend to be reviewed quicker than drafts in draft space (for reasons having to do with how AFC categories are set up). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernard J. Geis has been accepted

Bernard J. Geis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, taxonomically speaking

Wikipedia ads	file info – #184

Welcome to the Outlines Project. Thank you for volunteering. This project is in great need of your help.

There are many ways to get involved, but first, let me ask you a question...

What attracted you to the Outlines Project?

The Transhumanist 03:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Transhumanst! I've only been on Wikipedia a few months and so I'm in exploration mode to determine my areas of interest. Outlines intrigue me because Wikipedia is great for finding individual articles--but hard to find the bigger story. I see outlines as a way to help that. I've been in publishing for a long time and I've always said the great thing about a book is that an author will guide you and tell you not only what you need to know--but what you didn't know you needed to know. Outlines on Wikipedia can serve that purpose drawing out the bigger picture and serve as guideposts. --Jaldous1 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Exploration, eh? I'm intrigued that you should mention that. Me too. I've built over 500 outlines, as I find that creating and further developing them familiarizes me with the subject of each outline, more so than just reading them. I did an experiment to see if building an outline on something I already knew about would affect my skill at that, and created the Outline of chess. After spending 3 days on it, my game (which was pretty damn good already) improved in that I went from winning 50% of the time against those I regularly played, to winning 80% of the games against them. I was as shocked as they were.

What I'm getting at is, maybe you would enjoy editing outlines, as an extension of your exploration. What are some of your favorite subjects? The Transhumanist 17:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The History of Book Publishing, The History of Magazine Publishing, The History of the Book, Literature, ebooks, creation of worlds--I saw the outline for Narnia and Star Trek--I'm interested in how fictional worlds can expand. Those are boiling an ocean. But right now based on the articles I've been writing and working on-- one on the Big Five Book Publishers and another on History of the American Magazine. --Jaldous1 (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I lost track of this thread.

Let's see, one way you can track what's going on with outlines is to check the announcements on the WP:WPOOK page, and the discussions on its talk page. Another is to look at my contributions, to see what I'm working on. I'm almost always working on outlines.

Interesting choice of subjects. Almost all outlines have a history section. See Outline of books#History of books, and Outline of literature#History of literature.

Speaking of worldbuilding, you might be interested in the latest outline about a constructed world: Outline of A Song of Ice and Fire franchise. Some guy put an "Original research" tag on the "what types" section. I'm in the process of hunting down references for all the entries in that section, and for the hierarchical relationships between them as well. He wants proved with references that "high fantasy" is a type of "fantasy", and so on. There's a discussion on the talk page. Concerning the outline itself, please look it over and see if you can find any topics that were left out (like creatures, characters, any articles on ASOIAF or Game of Thrones, etc.).

Have fun. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 20:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Carolyn See

This article seems to be in excellent shape. I come to you not with criticism, but with a question.

Many biographical articles about living authors incorporate, with the listings of published titles, SKU/barcode numbers of one edition of each title. I hesitate, however, to add one, as there are no others here. Had I the time and the inclination, I could add them all, but I currently have neither.

This question would have, of course, been more appropriately placed on the article discussion page. However, that page contains not a single thread nor question, leading me to believe it to have been totally ignored, or possibly that it has been blanked at some point by some territorial editor. I see that you are fairly new to Wikipedia (welcome, by the way!), but you have done most of the recent editing. I looked back through the history for another editor active on this article, and I find Ouroborosian, who has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. And your knowledge and skillset indicate to me that you might be a person to ask. Though my interest is great, my knowledge is not. Possibly the practice has been discontinued. It does seem a bit arbitrary, since each edition, I believe, has a unique SKU.

Maybe I will copy this question to the talk page. If you have the time and inclination, feel free to answer me here on your talk page, on the article discussion page, or on my talk page. In any case I will see it. Once again, welcome, and thanks for your contributions. —Rags (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Done [in slightly different form], posted to article discussion page, also. ---Rags (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Seattle

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Seattle, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about the Greater Seattle area.

A page you started (M. Lincoln Schuster) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating M. Lincoln Schuster, Jaldous1!

Wikipedia editor Onel5969 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please correct the error in the citations. Nice article, surprised he didn't have one. Also thanks for the redirect on Max. You also might want to cut the clubs and memberships section.

To reply, leave a comment on Onel5969's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Milo Yiannopolous

Wow, that's some pretty extensive work. Well done! Looking at your most recent rev, I don't see anything that smells even remotely like POV. Karunamon ^✉ 16:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)